Question for UPN

[Cotillion]

[quote name='Banksy' date='16 May 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1274044504' post='2300303']
newpacificorder.net doesn't lead you to the NPO's forums. Let's start a topic about that~
[/quote]

If that was taken when NPO was just starting, and NPO wanted that, and the owner of it decided to let NPO use it while watching what they do and banning anyone who was not with NPO, and people who did not approve of this could not contact the owner of the domain privately, then that would be a legitimate comparison. Unfortunately, it is quite different. Try again, JD.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Archanis' date='17 May 2010 - 06:09 AM' timestamp='1274036951' post='2300103']
They DID go to IRC, Lukcia. That's where this problem BEGAN. Then they asked him about it and got no answer. Did you MISS all the posted chat logs on the first page?

FP, however, then came here and said the matter was resolved. And while we're still a little PO'd about how Greene handled this matter, we all accepted it as resolved. All of us. And then UPN and various other whiners came here crying foul on us for having the nerve to make public the fact that you handled a situation badly.

We made it public. And the situation was resolved. Those are the first two pages. The next five? There's the REAL smear campaign, but I assure you - it's NOT against UPN. You'll have to read through them again to guess who it IS against, however.
[/quote]
Just because not everyone is applauding Xiph's little grandstanding attempt, doesn't mean there is a smear campaign. If he actually wanted a resolution, and not everyone to go 'boo UPN, you suck', he would have approached UPN directly. Instead, it seems that he told all his friends to join the channel, is amazingly shocked and surprised when they got banned too, possibly tries to contact Greene, then comes here and starts shouting about how it was all UPN's fault. Not exactly the best approach.

[Chief Savage Man]

He got a resolution though. I imagine that private contact probably would gotten nowhere and he would have had to come here anyway.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='17 May 2010 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1274049288' post='2300449']
He got a resolution though. I imagine that private contact probably would gotten nowhere and he would have had to come here anyway.
[/quote]
I guess that's a matter of interpretation whether that was due to this topic though. I would argue that the resolution was going to come anyway, that Greene was always going to hand the channel over. In that case, this topic achieved nothing.

[Chief Savage Man]

I'm willing to bet that Greene was going to hand over the channel as soon as Facepunch was stuck in UPN's orbit. We'll never know.

[Fallen Fool]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='16 May 2010 - 11:51 AM' timestamp='1274025063' post='2299857']
All I learned is: GOONs and GOD and RIA have a complaint against Greene, can't get in touch with him/he's a dick when they do, they try to resolve it, it is resolved because this thread was posted, UPN doesn't look bad because it wasn't their fault at all that Greene's an idiot since he isn't in government in their alliance?

Am I missing something or does that about sum it up?

Oh, and then everyone else complains about GOONS/GOD/RIA complaining.
[/quote]Mentor of mine, you missed the part where GOONS/GOD/RIA's complaint is utterly nonsensical.

Unless of course "HE KICKED ME FROM A CHANNEL HE OWNED!! HE IS IS LE EVIL!!" became a real, legitimate complaint when I wasn't looking.

[quote name='Ardus' date='16 May 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1274029359' post='2299939']
While your last point sticks I have overwhelming difficulty in accepting that you actually believe the first point (a point also previously posed by Lintwad). You and I both know that were some individual to seize the obvious IRC names of alliances and refuse to turn them over they'd become a non-person around here. If an alliance endorsed it, every offended group would readily pursue war. I'd almost say the community at large would accept it as [i]casus belli[/i], but given the propensity of people to suspend logic in favor of their "side", I simply can't make that stretch.

For example, were alliances to pursue another large-scale migration to a new IRC server (as has once occurred, from esper to coldfront) and I rushed over first to claim all the possible Polaris-related channel names and hoarded over them, you'd be after my $@! in a heartbeat (and not just because my pale cheeks would look so very nice over your frosty mantles). That the rejected parties were concerned and offended is understandable given this was the perceived act. Greene didn't exactly do anything to dispel the perception of malice. I don't think I'd have pursued this public course of action (despite my long and storied love for public courses of action), but a smear campaign? Looks like it was a pretty legitimate complaint that was addressed, resolved, and then declared after the fact a smear campaign by parties opposed to anything related to Xippy.[/quote]It's not a legitimate concern whatsoever given the fact that many other potential IRC channel name combinations exist, such as #facepunchcn or #cnfacepunch or #cnfp or #fpcn. Hell, the viable alternatives are endless and that fact ensures that there is no basis for a "he took their best channel name!!" argument.

All that remains after that argument is shot to hell is the "he was rude to them!!" argument. Well !@#$ dude, it was [b]his[/b] channel and he [b]didn't[/b] want them there. It was his right to kick them out and as along as he didn't do so with a stream of OOC attacks then there is no issue.

[quote name='Archanis' date='16 May 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1274036951' post='2300103']They DID go to IRC, Lukcia. That's where this problem BEGAN. Then they asked him about it and got no answer. Did you MISS all the posted chat logs on the first page?

FP, however, then came here and said the matter was resolved. And while we're still a little PO'd about how Greene handled this matter, we all accepted it as resolved. All of us. And then UPN and various other whiners came here crying foul on us for having the nerve to make public the fact that you handled a situation badly.

We made it public. And the situation was resolved. Those are the first two pages. The next five? There's the REAL smear campaign, but I assure you - it's NOT against UPN. You'll have to read through them again to guess who it IS against, however.[/quote]Defending UPN in this case is tantamount to defending logic. If Xiph, or anyone else, gets smeared by that then it is only because they chose to champion the illogical.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Fallen_Fool

[Archanis]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='16 May 2010 - 06:33 PM' timestamp='1274049211' post='2300445']
Just because not everyone is applauding Xiph's little grandstanding attempt, doesn't mean there is a smear campaign. If he actually wanted a resolution, and not everyone to go 'boo UPN, you suck', he would have approached UPN directly. Instead, it seems that he told all his friends to join the channel, is amazingly shocked and surprised when they got banned too, possibly tries to contact Greene, then comes here and starts shouting about how it was all UPN's fault. Not exactly the best approach.
[/quote]Did you miss the part where he _did_ ask him about it directly? And given the fact that UPN has since denied all liability on this issue, do you honestly believe, had we contacted them specifically on IRC (which Xiph may have done, I'm not sure), things would've faired any differently than them saying "He's not our responsibility. He just wears our alliance tag, but we don't have any actual control over him", rather like they're saying right here in this thread? Because if you do, you truly ARE clueless.

[quote name='Fallen_Fool' date='16 May 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1274049780' post='2300468']Defending UPN in this case is tantamount to defending logic. If Xiph, or anyone else, gets smeared by that then it is only because they chose to push an illogical line of reasoning.
[/quote]You misunderstood my post. I don't honestly believe this is a smear campaign against Xiph. Given he started the thread, that would be illogical. My point, however, is you could just as easily argue that as you could that UPN is being smeared here. Which they're not.

Stating events that happened and questioning them is HARDLY a smear campaign. Nor is admitting the argument is over, which Xiph did _multiple pages ago_.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Archanis

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Archanis' date='17 May 2010 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1274049819' post='2300469']
Did you miss the part where he _did_ ask him about it directly? And given the fact that UPN has since denied all liability on this issue, do you honestly believe, had we contacted them specifically on IRC (which Xiph may have done, I'm not sure), things would've faired any differently than them saying "He's not our responsibility. He just wears our alliance tag, but we don't have any actual control over him", rather like they're saying right here in this thread? Because if you do, you truly ARE clueless.
[/quote]
I said he possibly contacted Greene about it, that wasn't really relevant to my point. This thread is directed at UPN, right? If you are going to come here and try to make a public spectacle over a UPN member kicking you from a channel he owns then it may be a good idea to contact UPN first. Whether they would have done something or denied responsibility is irrelevant, they were never given the chance, before their name was dragged through the mud over one member trying to help out a newly formed alliance. Perhaps before calling me clueless you should think about what you and Xiph tried to pull here, and who your target was.

[Un4Gvn1]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='15 May 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1273974381' post='2299312']
Yeah, but he doesn't have founder anymore. [i]We got that switched over this morning[/i], he didn't know the command [weirdly]. The ops were an attempt to get rid of founder, but Syn knows how to remove them if he doesn't want Greene to have them, so it's all good.
[/quote]

You got it switched over? Nice try.
You butted into a situation that was developing -- Greene helping them set up IRC -- word got out about the new channel that should have been set to private but wasn't, people were booted, then someone (was it you?) invited lots of people to join the channel to see how many would get booted and how much confusion could be caused for the people trying to set up the channel.
Your implication that the 'poor-UPN-abused newbs' were going to be taken over by the 'evil empire-building UPN' is off base and pure speculation or grandstanding on your part.

I cordially invited you to talk with me on IRC ... must have been on page 4 or so. You've not done so.
Others are saying that talking to UPN wouldn't work. Did any one of you that are contriving this ridiculous situation even attempt to talk with me?

No.

The new alliance will work with whom they choose; I'll watch to see who actually ends up manipulating them ...
the accused or the accusers.

This issue is dead and so is the thread.

[Haflinger]

Peggy Sue's the leader of UPN. If you want to contact UPN, she's not too hard to find.

[Xiphosis]

[quote]You got it switched over? Nice try.[/quote]

(03:13:52) (~Greene345) anyone know how to unfounder?
(03:14:05) (+Xiphosis[GOD]) /cs founder #facepunch set Syn[FP] I think
(03:14:20) (~Greene345) alright then.
(03:14:21) —› quit: (Greene345) (edit) (Quit: - nbs-irc 2.39 - www.nbs-irc.net -)
(03:14:33) —› join: (Greene345|UPN) (edit)

Yeah, pretty much.

[BlkAK47_002]

Has FacePunch asked for help or complained about this at least?

[abdur]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='16 May 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1274062095' post='2300785']
Has FacePunch asked for help or complained about this at least?
[/quote]
No, earlier in the thread, they said that they appreciated the help Greene gave them.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='16 May 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1274059914' post='2300740']
(03:13:52) (~Greene345) anyone know how to unfounder?
(03:14:05) (+Xiphosis[GOD]) /cs founder #facepunch set Syn[FP] I think
(03:14:20) (~Greene345) alright then.
(03:14:21) —› quit: (Greene345) (edit) (Quit: - nbs-irc 2.39 - www.nbs-irc.net -)
(03:14:33) —› join: (Greene345|UPN) (edit)

Yeah, pretty much.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I would suggest changing the founder password and giving that to them as well.[/color]

[Ardus]

[quote name='Fallen_Fool' date='16 May 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1274049780' post='2300468']
It's not a legitimate concern whatsoever given the fact that many other potential IRC channel name combinations exist, such as #facepunchcn or #cnfacepunch or #cnfp or #fpcn. Hell, the viable alternatives are endless and that fact ensures that there is no basis for a "he took their best channel name!!" argument.

All that remains after that argument is shot to hell is the "he was rude to them!!" argument. Well !@#$ dude, it was [b]his[/b] channel and he [b]didn't[/b] want them there. It was his right to kick them out and as along as he didn't do so with a stream of OOC attacks then there is no issue.
[/quote]

The "he possesses it, therefore it is his" argument is tenuous at best. If Alterego (just yanking a name from air here) were to by some means come into possession of the channel, would it be his to do with as he pleased? What if it acquired it by less than savory means? Let's transpose the argument to something other than channels: names. If you stay off IRC for a while (let's say you go on vacation, God knows we all need one) and let your name expire, am I within my rights to seize and register Fallen_Fool and its variants? No, you'd be irritated at the idea of having to use x1xFallenx1x instead of your actual handle, and rightfully so. Hell, you might get irritated even if I didn't register it, but only used it for a moment. Yes, I'm begging history here.

The interpretation of "ownership", or more accurately who has the right to registration and administration over IRC channels, forum names, handles, and so forth isn't just a "finders-keepers" fiasco. There are legitimate claims that can be made outside the bounds of who has immediate possession and refusing to recognize those claims because so-and-so got there first can have consequences.

[DrKshatriya]

[quote name='King Puffington' date='16 May 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1274018283' post='2299775']
Let's just take this to war already. :3
[/quote]

I agree with this man.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Ardus' date='17 May 2010 - 03:35 AM' timestamp='1274081716' post='2301070']
The "he possesses it, therefore it is his" argument is tenuous at best. If Alterego (just yanking a name from air here) were to by some means come into possession of the channel, would it be his to do with as he pleased? What if it acquired it by less than savory means? Let's transpose the argument to something other than channels: names. If you stay off IRC for a while (let's say you go on vacation, God knows we all need one) and let your name expire, am I within my rights to seize and register Fallen_Fool and its variants? No, you'd be irritated at the idea of having to use x1xFallenx1x instead of your actual handle, and rightfully so. Hell, you might get irritated even if I didn't register it, but only used it for a moment. Yes, I'm begging history here.

The interpretation of "ownership", or more accurately who has the right to registration and administration over IRC channels, forum names, handles, and so forth isn't just a "finders-keepers" fiasco. There are legitimate claims that can be made outside the bounds of who has immediate possession and refusing to recognize those claims because so-and-so got there first can have consequences.
[/quote]
What? How? CN is not linked to IRC. We, as a community, decided to collectively use one (actually two, counting Esper) of the numerous IRC servers. It is not ours and the fact that I may found an alliance named "Twigs" does not mean I am now entitled to the IRC channel of the same name. If someone already owns it, it is his to use as he sees fit. That's how IRC channels and servers have always operated. Sometimes, in rare occasions, a server moderator might step in and remove the "Founder" status from a person if a channel isn't used at all and people are complaining but it obviously wasn't the case.

Remember that there are other communities using the same servers. What would happen if, say, there was an alliance named "Federation of Buccaneers" on Pirates of the Burning Seas? They could have a legitimate claim on "FoB", could they not? Who gets it, then? I'd say it's "finders-keepers".

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='abdur' date='16 May 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1274063332' post='2300805']
No, earlier in the thread, they said that they appreciated the help Greene gave them.
[/quote]
If that is the case then this was nobodys buisness to begin with and was completley blown out of proportion.

UPN holding FP hostage is complete and utter bull&%@#

And if it's true that FP approved of Greene holding their channel then the extra few pages that are, and will be tacked on to this topic proves that a majority of this was a smear campaign (that failed) or people looking for an excuse for war.

[Barnaby von Farter]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='17 May 2010 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1274145280' post='2301732']
If that is the case then this was nobodys buisness to begin with and was completley blown out of proportion.

UPN holding FP hostage is complete and utter bull&%@#

And if it's true that FP approved of Greene holding their channel then the extra few pages that are, and will be tacked on to this topic proves that a majority of this was a smear campaign (that failed) or people looking for an excuse for war.
[/quote]

You admit that you are unaware of the facts, and that this may be a big smear campaign, yet you contribute to it. I would have taken your comment more seriously if you had said "If UPN is holding FP hostage, that would be complete and utter bullw;aofiajsfaf."

But you said it as though it was fact, hence continuing the smear campaign on accident. Whoops.

UPN doesn't seem the type to condone holding any sovereign body hostage, or otherwise force actions and decisions upon others but I guess only Facepaunch can say for sure.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Barnaby von Farter' date='17 May 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1274153030' post='2301853']
You admit that you are unaware of the facts,
[/quote]
Huh?

[quote name='Starpluck' date='15 May 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1273939584' post='2298793']
Guys its all solved, no need to make a big deal about. We ALL (Facepunch Alliance) thanked him for his assistance in mediating some problems. That is all.

No need to be an interventionist.
[/quote]
I guess that pretty much spells it out?

[quote name='Barnaby von Farter' date='17 May 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1274153030' post='2301853']
But you said it as though it was fact, hence continuing the smear campaign on accident. Whoops.
[/quote]

.......It was a fact

I'm not sure you completely thought this through before posting. Your rebuttal makes very little sense.

[flak attack]

Can we just all roll each other and be done with this.

[quote name='Alterego' date='15 May 2010 - 07:43 AM' timestamp='1273923762' post='2298616']
Im sure he was well aware of the potential consequences of what he was doing. Do yourself a favour and steer clear of UPN. They will take your tech and run away if you get attacked. Alliances like TOP, GOD, STA and MK would make much better allies.
[/quote]
Who the hell are you?

[Penkala]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='17 May 2010 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1274143737' post='2301717']
What? How? CN is not linked to IRC. We, as a community, decided to collectively use one (actually two, counting Esper) of the numerous IRC servers. It is not ours and the fact that I may found an alliance named "Twigs" does not mean I am now entitled to the IRC channel of the same name. If someone already owns it, it is his to use as he sees fit. That's how IRC channels and servers have always operated. Sometimes, in rare occasions, a server moderator might step in and remove the "Founder" status from a person if a channel isn't used at all and people are complaining but it obviously wasn't the case.

Remember that there are other communities using the same servers. What would happen if, say, there was an alliance named "Federation of Buccaneers" on Pirates of the Burning Seas? They could have a legitimate claim on "FoB", could they not? Who gets it, then? I'd say it's "finders-keepers".
[/quote]

You're completely misrepresenting the situation. This was not a channel that had been owned for some time until some alliance came by with the same name as the channel and asked for it. It was a case of a new, large alliance being formed, and someone racing to the channel name they'd want in an effort to register it ahead of time. They did this specifically knowing the advantages: They'd be seen as a good guy trying to help by FPA, and they'd be able to kickban members of other alliances out, preventing them from talking to FPA. Both of these things are important because they allow UPN to establish a protectorate or tech deal with FPA while preventing anybody else from talking to them.

UPN has already admitted why they do things. They play realpolitik and are willing to do anything for an advantage. This is just another one of those cases.

You can bring up hypotheticals about alliances doubling up on names and the like, but that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Penkala

[jerdge]

This thread might have had a point had it been in AA or WA, but here it's just hilarious.

On IRC everybody and their mother can register anything that it's not yet registered, and as the combinations for almost everything are virtually infinite there's [i]definitely no reason[/i] to complain about it.
Exploiting this issue IC might have instead been interesting: "make believe" should IMHO be free reign for whatever source of drama one might try to give life to.

Waste of an occasion here... I'll move along.

[Archanis]

[quote name='Penkala' date='18 May 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1274189672' post='2302127']
You're completely misrepresenting the situation. This was not a channel that had been owned for some time until some alliance came by with the same name as the channel and asked for it. It was a case of a new, large alliance being formed, and someone racing to the channel name they'd want in an effort to register it ahead of time. They did this specifically knowing the advantages: They'd be seen as a good guy trying to help by FPA, and they'd be able to kickban members of other alliances out, preventing them from talking to FPA. Both of these things are important because they allow UPN to establish a protectorate or tech deal with FPA while preventing anybody else from talking to them.

UPN has already admitted why they do things. They play realpolitik and are willing to do anything for an advantage. This is just another one of those cases.

You can bring up hypotheticals about alliances doubling up on names and the like, but that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.
[/quote]When NSO agrees with us, you can tell someone totally screwed up on the UPN side.


But, again, the matter really is closed, unfortunately. UPN still handled this like twats, mind. But FP said they're fine with it, so we should all move on probably.

[Chief Savage Man]

Sooner or later, CN will find an excuse to clear UPN from the sanction spot they don't deserve. Unfortunately, this wasn't it.